Bastard Nation advocates for the civil and human rights of adult citizens who were adopted as children. Millions are prohibited by law from accessing personal records that pertain to their historical, genetic and legal identities. Such records are held by their governments in secret and without accountability, due solely to the fact that they were adopted.
Bastard Nation campaigns for the restoration of their right to access their records. End a hidden legacy of shame, fear and venality.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Tuesday, the Missouri Senate Health, Mental Health, Seniors, and Families Committee held a hearing on it's greatly flawed SB 351. (text, status/history) Bastard Nation, through our long-time member Carla McBrine as able to submit our opposition testimony in person. Unfortunately, the committee voted the bill out of committee (I haven't been able to find the roll call vote) and the bill is headed for the Senate. At this time, we don't know if it will be scheduled for a vote. The session ends May 13.

TESTIMONY

SB 351:

access to identifying information for adoptions original birth certificate

Missouri Senate Health, Mental Health, Seniors and Families Committee

March 29, 2011

OPPOSE

Privilege is the opposite of rights

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization is the largest adoptee civil rights organization in the United States. We support full, unrestricted access for all adopted persons, SB 351.

Under current Missouri law, the original birth certificates of all Missouri adoptees are sealed and cannot be released to the adoptee except by court order and only with the consent of both the biological and adoptive parents. This 4-signature consent represents the most restrictive OBC access law in the United States. For as long as we can remember, Missouri adoption reform advocates have been attempting to free the state's adoptees from these onerous restrictions.

Unfortunately, SB 351 is not the bill to overturn the current law. SB 351makes superficial changes to the OBC access structure, removing adoptive parent sign-offs, while maintaining retrospectively and prospectively the other restrictions which keep Missouri adoptee birth records and identity a state secret.

SB 351 is misleading and inimical to the rights of all Missouri adoptees. The measure is promoted as an “adoptee rights” and OBC “access bill.” It is not. SB 351 reinforces out-dated adoption secrecy through the disclosure affidavit for “birthparents” The bill even authorizes a natural parent to not only order the state to withhold the OBC from the adoptee, but to override the wishes of the other parent that it be released! SB 351 does not restore the right to the OBC once enjoyed by all Missouri adoptees. Instead, it makes adoptee access to their own birth certificates a state/”birth family” conditioned privilege separate and unequal from the right enjoyed by Missouri's not adopted.

Sooner or later Missouri and every other state that has not opened OBCs unconditionally to adoptees are going to be forced to. The issue isn't going away. This is not a matter of if, but when.

Adopted adults, especially since 9/11, are increasingly denied passports, drivers licenses, pensions, Social Security benefits, professional certifications, and security clearances due to discrepancies on their amended birth certificates, and their inability to produce an original birth certificate to answer the problems.

Adoptees without a genuine original birth record could soon be barred from running for public office.‭ ‬At least‭ ‬10‭ ‬states, including Missouri (HB 283; sp Lyle Rowland, Mike Kelly) have introduced legislation requiring presidential and vice-presidential candidates to present their original birth certificates to appropriate authorities to prove citizenship eligibility for office.‭ ‬Some of these bills go farther,‭ ‬mandating anyone running for office to prove citizenship through an original birth certificate.‭ ‬It is no stretch to think that someday soon adoptees could be barred from voting due to lack of‭ “‬legal‭” ‬identity over problematic amended birth certificates,‭ ‬and the perpetual sealing of the originals.‭

Kansas and Alaska have never sealed original birth certificates. Since 1999 four states have restored to adoptees the unrestricted right to records and identity access: Oregon through ballot initiative, and Alabama, New Hampshire, and Maine through legislation. No statistics are available for Kansas and Alaska, but approximately 17,000 OBCs in the latter four states have been released with no reported ill consequences.

Rights are for all citizens, not favors doled out to some Missouri does not segregate rights by religion, ethnicity, age, or gender. It should not segregate rights by birth, adoptive status, or third party preference.Vote DO NOT PASS on SB 351. All of Missouri adoptees must enjoy equal protection, due process, and dignity. Missouri adoptees deserve better than SB 351!

Bastard Nation is dedicated to the recognition of the full human and civil rights of adult adoptees. Toward that end, we advocate the opening to adoptees, upon request at age of majority, of those government documents which pertain to the adoptee's historical, genetic, and legal identity, including the unaltered original birth certificate and adoption decree. Bastard Nation asserts that it is the right of people everywhere to have their official original birth records unaltered and free from falsification, and that the adoptive status of any person should not prohibit him or her from choosing to exercise that right. We have reclaimed the badge of bastardy placed on us by those who would attempt to shame us; we see nothing shameful in having been born out of wedlock or in being adopted. Bastard Nation does not support mandated mutual consent registries or intermediary systems in place of unconditional open records, nor any other system that is less than access on demand to the adult adoptee, without condition, and without qualification.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Tomorrow the Texas Senate Jurisprudence Committee will hold a hearing on SB 287, the newest attempt by legislators to torture that state's Class Bastard. There are more things wrong with this bill than the special effects in Spiderman. Below is the 3-minute testimony Bastard Nation submitted to the committee.

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization is the largest adoptee civil rights organization in the United States. We support full, unrestricted access for all adopted persons, upon request, of their own true, unaltered original birth certificates (OBC). We oppose SB 287.

SB 287 is egregious in extremis. SB 287 is prospective. It contains a misnamed, linguistically confusing "contact preference form" (which has nothing to do with "preference" or "contact")that authorizes a natural parent to not only order the state registrar to withhold the OBC from the adoptee, but to override the "preference" of the other parent that it be released. Moreover, treating adult adoptees and their natural parent(s) as children at best, dangerous criminals at worst, SB 287 forces mandatory social service or mental health counseling on both parties simply because they want the OBC released.

SB 287 is a dirty bill.

Clean bills, unlike SB 287 with its conditions and restrictions, provides equal OBC access to all adoptees retrospectively and prospectively, with no conditions or exceptions.

Clean bills, unlike SB 287, contain no third party disclosure and contact vetoes.

Clean bills, unlike SB 287, contain no mandatory counseling, registries, confidential state intermediaries, and other conditions that limit the free flow of information and treat the adopted differently from the not-adopted.

Clean bills, unlike SB 287, have nothing to do with search and reunion, matters best left to individuals to act on without state mediation and control.

Clean bills unlike, unlike SB 287 with it's "anonymous" medical registry, have nothing to do with adoptee/parent medical histories. The OBC, in fact, contains no medical information. A state demand for natural parent medical history, as included in SB 287, may be in violation of federal HIPAA provisions.

Clean bills, unlike SB 287 simply let the adopted person receive their own birth certificate with no government intervention, like the not-adopted. A clean bill in Texas, unlike SB 287 would restore the right of OBC access that all Texas adoptees enjoyed until the mid-1970s.

When adoptees are denied the right to their own birth certificates our other rights can be endangered. Since‭ ‬9/11,‭ ‬especially,‭ ‬we are increasingly denied passports,‭ ‬drivers‭’ ‬licenses,‭ ‬pensions,‭ ‬Social Security benefits,‭ ‬professional certification and licenses,‭ ‬and security clearances due to discrepancies on our falsified government-created amended birth certificates,‭ ‬and inability to present true documents sealed by the state to remedy the problems.

Adoptees without a genuine original birth record could soon be barred from running for public office.‭ ‬At least‭ ‬10‭ ‬states, including Texas (HB 295) have introduced legislation requiring presidential and vice-presidential candidates to present their original birth certificates to appropriate authorities to prove citizenship eligibility for office.‭ ‬Some of these bills go farther,‭ ‬mandating anyone running for office to prove citizenship through an original birth certificate.‭ ‬It is no stretch to think that someday soon adoptees could be barred from voting due to lack of‭ “‬legal‭” ‬identity over problematic amended birth certificates,‭ ‬and the perpetual sealing of the originals.‭

‭If passed, ‬SB 287 with its restrictions and exclusionary rules, will guarantee that Texas adoptees will never be treated on an equal plane with the not-adopted. If passed, the damage done by SB 287 will take decades--if ever-- to untangle.

‭The Texas legislature should take action now to assure that its adopted population is not subjected to public and private scrutiny and discrimination due to birth certificate irregularities and seals; that all Texas adoptees receive equal treatment, protection, and due process ‬Vote DO NOT PASS on SB 287. Kill this bill. Then come back with a clean bill that guarantees that all Texas adoptees will enjoy equal protection, due process, and dignity.

Bastard Nation is dedicated to the recognition of the full human and civil rights of adult adoptees. Toward that end, we advocate the opening to adoptees, upon request at age of majority, of those government documents which pertain to the adoptee's historical, genetic, and legal identity, including the unaltered original birth certificate and adoption decree. Bastard Nation asserts that it is the right of people everywhere to have their official original birth records unaltered and free from falsification, and that the adoptive status of any person should not prohibit him or her from choosing to exercise that right. We have reclaimed the badge of bastardy placed on us by those who would attempt to shame us; we see nothing shameful in having been born out of wedlock or in being adopted. Bastard Nation does not support mandated mutual consent registries or intermediary systems in place of unconditional open records, nor any other system that is less than access on demand to the adult adoptee, without condition, and without qualification.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Long-time activist Maryanne Cohen was with Bastard Nation at the Hard Rock last week (see below).After the event, she sent A "Modest Proposal" to Adam Pertman, director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute and posted the same on a couple lists. Her proposal is simple: clean up the mess you've made with your bad bills that leave people behind before you lecture the rest of us about the uselessness of working on good bills that don't. As she reminds them, "In contrast to the fact of some clean bills being passed, no bad adoption legislation has ever been successfully revisited and "fixed" to make it unconditional access legislation."

I liked what Maryanne wrote and asked if I could post it here. Maryanne agreed, but first expanded her thoughts, which you'll find below. Please feel free to forward.

I recently attended an "Adoptee Rights" event where it was said over and over that while we would really rather support clean adoptee rights legislation, clean bills cannot get passed so we must support compromised bills. Never fear though, we will go back and fix those bad bills soon so it's all good. Smiley faces and applause all around.

My challenge to those who feel this way is to stop introducing compromised bills of various sorts in states where no adoptee access legislation has been passed yet, and go back and put all your efforts into fixing one of the several states that have already been compromised so that not all adoptees there can get their OBC by asking. You have several to choose from, Ohio and MA with black hole legislation, IL which is too complicated to figure out, DE, CO. all come to mind.There are a few others. Pick one. Ohio's black hole law has been in place for decades, that might be a place to start. Go to work on it. Report back when it is repaired. I'll buy you a beer!

The fact is that clean legislation HAS passed in several states, New Hampshire, Maine, Alabama. Was it easy? No. Will it be harder in some states than others? Sure! is it nearly impossible to pass anything in some states like NJ where I live? Yes. Is legislative reform frustrating, exhausting, cynic-making, sometimes disgusting, sometimes fruitless work? Yes, absolutely. But it has been done and can be done again. We have to be in this for the long haul, not quick dirty Band Aid patches.

In contrast to the fact of some clean bills being passed, no bad adoption legislation has ever been successfully revisited and "fixed" to make it unconditional access legislation. I do not think it honest to promise something nobody has yet delivered as a condition to pass something/anything on your watch. It is more difficult to go back and fix flawed legislation than to hold out for a clean bill. One reason is that many veto bills give birthmothers a right under law to request confidentiality that they never had before. Another is that our cause is not important to politicians, and their attitude is "we already dealt with that little issue" when we try to come back and amend existing laws.

Veto, black hole, compulsory intermediary legislation is not adoptee RIGHTS legislation, and should not be called such. It is an admission that adoptees have no rights, which would be across the board, no exceptions, but can only ask permission from Mom and the state to please see their OBC. It may be search and reunions legislation, which some would support as their main goal, and I can understand that, but do not say it is about rights when it is not. A "Right" applies to all in a named group. Blacks, Gays, Women, Adoptees. If it does not apply to all it should not be called a right. Clear enough? Some laws for various groups pass that help some of that group, and may be a good thing for some, but they are not "rights" laws. "Rights" either apply to all in a class or it is not a right but a privilege granted by the state and Mom. A right stands on its own. A privilege can be taken away. You HAVE a right. Someone GIVES you a privilege or favor.

I would be a little less upset about badly compromised adoptee access legislation if those supporting it were honest and did not refer to it as "adoptee rights" or "adoptee birthright" legislation, because it is not. Such legislation admits this is not about civil or human rights for all adoptees, but about granting a favor to some. Call it "search and reunion" legislation, or "something is better than nothing legislation" but don't say it is about rights. There are no "Rights Lite".

The point has been made that "99%" of adoptees will still be able to get their OBC because only 1% mothers will file vetoes, so what's the harm?

Another point also made is that "adoptees are dying" in large numbers without being reunited or getting their medical history because mean people like BN insist on only clean bills. There is also a lot of sentimentality about senior citizen adoptees, as if they mattered more than the rest or deserved more.

These assertions are distortions and exaggerations. Even if your point of view is about reunions, not rights, certainly more than 1% of birthmothers do not welcome contact, based on the experience of search results for many years, Yes, a majority want to be found, but nothing inthe real world indicates that high a majority. Self-selected surveys are skewed, always. And surrendering mothers gave up all rights over the adoptee, why give us rights we never had and mostly do not want with veto laws?

As far as search and reunion go, something I totally favor as a personal choice, there are so many ways to search and reunite now that do not depend on legally obtaining an OBC that very few adoptees who want to search actually die without finding. The OBC is not the one golden key to reunion. Sadly some of those who do have the OBC or all the information on it, never find their families either, because the information was all false at the time of surrender so isuseless for searching. Many adoptees who have already reunited still would like the right to their OBC, as would some who have no intention of searching. Search, reunion, medical and agency records access just further cloud and obscure the issue of adoptee rights to their own original birth certificate, to do with as they please.

I would ask the proponents of various kinds of compromised legislation to stop calling it adoptee rights, and stop promising to go and fix laws that you cannot or will not fix. Tell people up front, what you see with a compromised bill is what you get, for decades to come, and some adoptees will be left out. You don't know how many, but be upfront if what you care about is even a few adoptees getting their OBC now, not adoptee rights. If you think that legislation that cuts out some adoptees is ok because other adoptees get their OBC, say so, don't be crying crocodile tears about how you would really rather have clean legislation, BUT.......

Some of this is of course my opinion. But keep in mind two facts, not opinions. Several states HAVE passed clean legislation, despite the heavy obstacles. No compromised adoptee access legislation has ever been revisited and fixed to be a true adoptee rights law. Make what you will of that, but remember it when you decide what to do legislatively and what to support.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

On March 10, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute held a 3-hour "event," Learning the RIGHT Lessons about Adoption: What the Oprah Winfrey Reunion Story Teaches Us" Seven Bastard National and friends attended the "event"--witnesses to the truth as it turned out, in a room full of adoption deformist contortionists weaned on NewSpeak.

I am publishing Bastard Nation documents, commentary, and video from the Hard Rock on the BN blog and the Daily Bastardette. I will also post the documented words and actions of deformers at the event backslapping and trading off the rights of Class Bastard for permission and privilege for some. You know, the vetoed, the 'safe havened," the tiered--maybe YOU--tossed in the black hole.

Below is the Bastard Nation flyer we distributed before the "event." We wanted to document the "event" and hold the feet of the sheep to the fire, so flyer distribution was limited. We did, however, manage to give out a larger number of buttons and stickers.

During the Q&A with the "panel of experts," (no promised scholar showed up) two of us brought up points from the flyer. The "experts" denied and dismissed our questions as someplace not to go. Below our flyer are portions of the New Jersey A1406 bill and the state's current "safe haven" law that provide more or less footnotes to our four flyer points. They are not a legal analysis, but we can read. After all, we've actually passed clean bills."

1. Flyer text:"Seal the records of all children passing through the state’s legalized child abandonment (“safe haven”) scheme"

Bill: page 5. This is all new language. 7 e. Notwithstanding the requirements of this section to the 8 contrary, in the case of a child who was surrendered pursuant to 9 P.L.2000, c.58 (C.30:4C-15.5 et seq.) and upon receipt of 10 notification from the Division of Youth and Family Services in the 11 Department of Children and Families pursuant to subsection f. of 12 this section, the State Registrar shall deem that the birth parent of 13 the child has requested nondisclosure and shall not provide the birth 14 parent's name or home address, if the name or address is recorded 15 on the child's birth certificate, upon receipt of a written, notarized 16 request for an uncertified, long-form copy of the adopted person's 17 original certificate of birth pursuant to R.S.26:8-40.1. 18 f. The Division of Youth and Family Services in the 19 Department of Children and Families shall notify the State Registrar 20 when a child is surrendered pursuant to P.L.2000, c.58 (C.30:4C- 21 15.5 et seq.) to enable the Registrar to identify the certificate of 22 birth of the child who was so surrendered and deem that the birth 23 parent of the child has requested nondisclosure, as provided in 24 subsection e. of this section. This is in a part marked "New section" and this language does not appear in the current law. Note that "surrendered pursuant to " is a determination of surrender under safe haven law and is assumed that the parent requested nondisclosure.

===

2. Flyer text: "Segregate out a new class of adoptees locked behind vetoes and other restrictions, barred from gaining access to their state confiscated OriginalBirth Certificates (OBCs)"

Bill page 4, veto prohibiting the state to provide parent name and address: 13 2. (New section) a. During the 12-month period beginning on 14 the date of adoption of regulations by the Department of Health and 15 Senior Services to carry out the purposes of this act, a birth parent 16 of a person adopted prior to the date of enactment of this act may 17 submit to the State Registrar a written, notarized request for 18 nondisclosure or may make such a request to the State Registrar in 19 person. The request for nondisclosure shall prohibit the State 20 Registrar from providing the birth parent's name and home address, 21 as recorded on the adopted person's birth certificate, upon receipt of 22 a written, notarized request for an uncertified, long-form copy of 23 the adopted person's original certificate of birth pursuant to 24 subsection b. of R.S.26:8-40.1 from an adopted person, direct 25 descendant or adoptive parent or guardian authorized by that statute 26 to make such a request. also from page 5: 35 b. If the birth parent of the adopted person has submitted a 36 request for nondisclosure pursuant to section 2 of this act, the State 37 Registrar shall delete the identifying information of the birth parent 38 from the uncertified, long form copy of the original certificate of 39 birth and the family history form submitted by the birth parent with 40 the certificate of birth, and thereafter provide both to the requester. also from page 7, this regards the adoption file as opposed to OBC: 17 Prior to providing any identifying information about a birth 18 parent or the parent's family, the agency or intermediary, as 19 applicable, shall contact the State Registrar to receive written 20 notification if the birth parent has submitted a request for 21 nondisclosure. If such a request has been submitted, the agency or 22 intermediary shall not disclose any identifying information about 23 the birth parent or the parent's family. note that this bill has both a nondisclosure veto, *and* a contact preference, submission of either requires medical/family history form completion.

===

3. Flyer text:"Create an adoption industry liability shield, stripping adopted people and their families of their ability to sue agencies"

Bill page 8: 10 7. (New section) a. A person, firm, partnership, corporation, 11 association or agency that has placed a child for adoption shall not 12 be liable in any civil or criminal action for damages resulting from 13 information provided by the State Registrar pursuant to this act. 14 b. An employee, agent or officer of the Department of Health 15 and Senior Services who is authorized by the Commissioner of 16 Health and Senior Services to disclose information relating to the 17 certification of birth pursuant to this act, shall not be liable for: 18 (1) disclosing information based on a written, notarized request 19 submitted in accordance with this act; and 20 (2) any error or inaccuracy in the information that is disclosed 21 after receipt of a written, notarized request submitted in accordance with this act, and any consequence of that error or inaccuracy.

===

4. Flyer text: " Coerce some mothers into handing over their medical histories to the government, a gross violation of women’s medical privacy"

Bill, in the part explaining the disclosure veto process, page 4: 27 b. The State Registrar shall acknowledge, by mail, or if the 28 request is made in person, at the time the request is made, receipt of 29 the request for nondisclosure and shall enclose with the receipt a 30 family history form requesting medical, cultural, and social history 31 regarding the birth parent, which the State Registrar shall require 32 the birth parent to complete to the best of the parent's knowledge 33 and return to the State Registrar within 60 days. The birth parent 34 may update the family history form, as necessary. Failure of a birth 35 parent to complete the form and return it within 60 days, upon 36 requesting nondisclosure, shall nullify the birth parent's request for 37 nondisclosure. Bill, in the part explaining the contact preference, page 6: 8 c. The State Registrar shall require a birth parent who submits 9 a document of contact preference pursuant to this section to 10 complete a form providing updated family history information, 11 which includes medical, cultural and social history information 12 regarding the birth parent. all the bolding in above text is mine.

This is the "C.30:4C-21 15.5 et seq." that is referenced in the bill I quote above, aka "P.L.2000, c.58." while the word "confidentiality" is used twice, there is nothing in the law enforcing it. The Division of Youth and Family Services is not required to search for parents or relatives, but is not prohibited from doing so. quote: "The division, after assuming the care, custody and control of a child from a licensed general hospital pursuant to section 4 of P.L.2000, c.58 (C.30:4C-15.7), shall not be required to attempt to reunify the child with the child's parents. Additionally, the division shall not be required to search for relatives of the child as a placement or permanency option, or to implement other placement requirements that give preference to relatives if the division does not have information as to the identity of the child, the child's mother or the child's father. The division shall place the child with potential adoptive parents as soon as possible. "

We can only wonder if NJCare (and its best friend, the EBD) has read their own bill as well as current NJ laws which it is trying to affect. In case you think I'm exagerating, documentation to verify these tete a tetes will be posted in a a few days.